If they charge everyone 25 cents more per month, I doubt they would lose one customer
I don't think this statement means what you think it means. Do you NOT see the "if" and the "would" there? Perhaps you wanted to say "They have raised prices by 25 cents and they have not lost a single customer." But you didn't.
Yes, Netflix has raised prices AND they have lower priced. They've also changed their service many, many times. Your point is?
Your basic point is pure ignorance. You cannot raise (or even lower) prices a "nominal" amount without affecting membership. As I clearly pointed out, any rational business would have already raised the price by that amount or they are leaving money on the table.
What you are advocating is that Netflix simply give away some profit in order to provide captioning, the idea that it wouldn't cost them anything because "they could increase prices a nominal amount" is, once again, absurd.
What on earth are you talking about? You just said they SHOULD charge everyone 25 cents more, now you say they've already done so? I don't think you have any idea how Netflix or any other for-profit business actually works.
The ADA, specifically, is not the point you made. The point you made is that only people who are handicapped can decide whatever is fair to provide for the handicapped, no matter how ridiculous. By extension, only people of color can decide what is fair compensation for institutional racism. Only those who lose their job should get a say in what resources should be provided for them....
If they charge everyone 25 cents more per month, I doubt they would lose one customer, and it would probably pay for the cost of providing closed captions hundreds of times over.
This is nonsense. If they could raise prices without losing customers then they would have done so already. Your statement here directly contradicts the cynical view of corporations you describe later in your post
Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration
on
Diablo III Released
·
· Score: 1
Since you knew the servers would suck in the first few weeks why didn't you just wait to play the game until things settled down? It seems your complaint is as equally vacuous as the one you criticize.
Everyone knows that the game might not be playable in 10 years and everyone knows that the service will be spotty at first. If you still choose to plunk down your $60 then you've made a conscious decision to accept both probabilities.
The simple solution is to not buy digital products from people you don't trust. Building a solid reputation does take time (and money) and is not so easily discarded. The problem is that people blindly spend a few bucks on companies with no reputation and then are shocked when those companies don't follow the highest standards of customer service.
This doesn't absolve those unethical companies of guilt, but it doesn't make me feel too sorry for those who choose not to patronize (reward) companies with good reputations. This is true in the digital world or the real world.
I'd say at the point that it's sitting out in my backyard, I haven't used it in 4 months and it has zero resale value. That doesn't make it "OK", but it doesn't make it a big deal, either.
This is not the sample case that proves the evils of digital distribution.
This is a minor inconvenience, at best. Since the app had been free for many months already, there were probably few of the original purchasers still playing the game. If they were, the vast majority had probably already received more than enough value from their dollar.
Claiming that those original purchasers have been screwed out of $150,000 is as absurd as saying that software companies lose full value for every game that is pirated.
Sure, any reasonable or expected qualifications would be made, just as with any other sales model. Most traditional games have some limitations, but as we're used to those and they are more standardized we are less freaked out by them (or caught unawares).
The old model of selling software is going away, we might as well get used to it. We still have time, however, to influence the newer models, but the way that maximizes profit is going to win out eventually. I believe it's in our best interest to help the developers find that model quicker rather than stumble along making bone-headed mistakes that don't increase their overall profit, but also inconvenience us (or cost us) more than necessary.
if i'm a developer and want to sell a game for $42.00 - $48.00 to a game store and they want to buy it and we can come to an agreement then that should be okay....
if you can give me a single valid reason why any of these transactions are immoral or advise where the developer should get more money then i shall concede that something should be done to hinder the used game market.
You're right that nobody is doing anything wrong in that model. Now what if the developer offers to sell his game for $30, but adds the limitation that you can't resell it (or more precisely that if you resell the disc that the game will have little or no value to the purchaser).
As in your example everyone is making a decision with full information, so where is the harm in that? In fact the developer might sell twice as many games and the original purchaser gets the game for cheaper than he/she would have paid (even after removing the resell benefit), so it is a win-win for those two. The only ones harmed by this model are those who would only buy the game used, but do we really have any obligation to protect their interests?
It is possible that there can be more than one fair way to publish and sell a game (or a book or a car).
The only thing sticking with the project demonstrates is that you're willing to work like a dog in intolerable conditions for a bunch of assholes. That ability might be useful to have on your resume, but not for any job I would want.
Cable box manufacturers "do not feel consumer pressure to improve box efficiency" because consumers don't have a choice with which to pressure them.
If this were true then cable companies would never upgrade their boxes with most consumer features and they wouldn't spend billions in advertising.
In reality, there are many competitors to cable and they do add features (or lower prices) in response to consumer demand. In this case there is simply no general consumer awareness or demand for lower power STBs.
You just admitted that you're going there only because of the event so yes, it is a "free ride." The answer to how far away you need to go to not be getting a "free ride" is simple - far enough so that you're not getting an advantage from their event.
It may be a smart business move for you to take advantage of this free ride, but it's equally smart for CES to move you a little farther from their event, if they can. It's hard to blame them for using their business leverage when the hypothetical you tried to screw them first.
I think it boils down to the idea that if the teachers are already being paid to make lesson plans, then those plan are "work for hire" and they should not be able to sell them and profit yet again.
At best you make a case for why the practice is illegal. However, I have a hard time seeing how this practice, in general, is unethical and given the poorly designed compensation system for teachers this actually makes a lot of sense.
Teachers should be paid for performance, not for busy work (or the appearance of being busy). So whether a teacher works on a lesson plan during school hours or on the weekend is irrelevant if he's performing his primary task, which is educating the students. If a teacher puts in extra work to make a salable lesson plan then that not only benefits his own students, but also benefits every other student whose teacher buys that plan. If there were an incentive (pay, benefits, prestige) for that teacher to do this through the current school system that would be fine, but there isn't.
Yes, the teacher buying the plans benefits from not having to duplicate the work, but where is the harm in that? If the teacher deems it worthwhile to pay out of pocket then that teacher has more time for other activities. If the school pays for the plans then that is just a benefit they offer to lighten the load of the teachers at that school. Forcing teachers to duplicate work (which in most cases won't even be as good) is pointless and short-sighted.
Wait... suddenly understanding your own code is "formalized discipline"? Might I suggest your standards are simply too low? Because, in my mind, understanding your own code is in the category of "basic competency".
You were the guy who brought up "formalized discipline" as the goal, so the guy made a fair comment in response. You can't just use extreme examples when it suits you and then fault the other guy for carrying on your own analogy.
But humans do sometimes make such boneheaded mistakes, so you'd really just need to correctly estimate that probability (maybe they hang their queen only 0.2% of the time).
That's not really the problem though. As the author would probably point out, even that realistic probability would be perceived by the human player as the computer player intentionally throwing the game.
There may be a "friend was able to get a $NKBps sustained transfer through the cable connection at the time of the experiment" part that we're missing from the description.
That's kind of an important part, isn't it? The conclusion is totally unfounded based on the supplied evidence, so it's pretty worthless (at least to us).
If quality is lower it's because users demand the games more quickly and accept patches as a compromise. I have little sympathy for someone who buys a game on the first day of release and then bitches about the quality.
If gameplay is shorter it's because developers have figured out that the vast majority of customers never get past those first 6 hours or so.
Slashdot Mirror
If they charge everyone 25 cents more per month, I doubt they would lose one customer
I don't think this statement means what you think it means. Do you NOT see the "if" and the "would" there? Perhaps you wanted to say "They have raised prices by 25 cents and they have not lost a single customer." But you didn't.
Yes, Netflix has raised prices AND they have lower priced. They've also changed their service many, many times. Your point is?
Your basic point is pure ignorance. You cannot raise (or even lower) prices a "nominal" amount without affecting membership. As I clearly pointed out, any rational business would have already raised the price by that amount or they are leaving money on the table.
What you are advocating is that Netflix simply give away some profit in order to provide captioning, the idea that it wouldn't cost them anything because "they could increase prices a nominal amount" is, once again, absurd.
What on earth are you talking about? You just said they SHOULD charge everyone 25 cents more, now you say they've already done so? I don't think you have any idea how Netflix or any other for-profit business actually works.
The ADA, specifically, is not the point you made. The point you made is that only people who are handicapped can decide whatever is fair to provide for the handicapped, no matter how ridiculous. By extension, only people of color can decide what is fair compensation for institutional racism. Only those who lose their job should get a say in what resources should be provided for them....
That's absurd and impractical.
If they charge everyone 25 cents more per month, I doubt they would lose one customer, and it would probably pay for the cost of providing closed captions hundreds of times over.
This is nonsense. If they could raise prices without losing customers then they would have done so already. Your statement here directly contradicts the cynical view of corporations you describe later in your post
Since you knew the servers would suck in the first few weeks why didn't you just wait to play the game until things settled down? It seems your complaint is as equally vacuous as the one you criticize.
Everyone knows that the game might not be playable in 10 years and everyone knows that the service will be spotty at first. If you still choose to plunk down your $60 then you've made a conscious decision to accept both probabilities.
Except that the fine print on the ticket explicitly gives them the rights to use your image.
The simple solution is to not buy digital products from people you don't trust. Building a solid reputation does take time (and money) and is not so easily discarded. The problem is that people blindly spend a few bucks on companies with no reputation and then are shocked when those companies don't follow the highest standards of customer service.
This doesn't absolve those unethical companies of guilt, but it doesn't make me feel too sorry for those who choose not to patronize (reward) companies with good reputations. This is true in the digital world or the real world.
Your generation had better start getting used to new ideas.
I'd say at the point that it's sitting out in my backyard, I haven't used it in 4 months and it has zero resale value. That doesn't make it "OK", but it doesn't make it a big deal, either.
This is not the sample case that proves the evils of digital distribution.
This is a minor inconvenience, at best. Since the app had been free for many months already, there were probably few of the original purchasers still playing the game. If they were, the vast majority had probably already received more than enough value from their dollar.
Claiming that those original purchasers have been screwed out of $150,000 is as absurd as saying that software companies lose full value for every game that is pirated.
Sure, any reasonable or expected qualifications would be made, just as with any other sales model. Most traditional games have some limitations, but as we're used to those and they are more standardized we are less freaked out by them (or caught unawares).
The old model of selling software is going away, we might as well get used to it. We still have time, however, to influence the newer models, but the way that maximizes profit is going to win out eventually. I believe it's in our best interest to help the developers find that model quicker rather than stumble along making bone-headed mistakes that don't increase their overall profit, but also inconvenience us (or cost us) more than necessary.
if i'm a developer and want to sell a game for $42.00 - $48.00 to a game store and they want to buy it and we can come to an agreement then that should be okay....
if you can give me a single valid reason why any of these transactions are immoral or advise where the developer should get more money then i shall concede that something should be done to hinder the used game market.
You're right that nobody is doing anything wrong in that model. Now what if the developer offers to sell his game for $30, but adds the limitation that you can't resell it (or more precisely that if you resell the disc that the game will have little or no value to the purchaser).
As in your example everyone is making a decision with full information, so where is the harm in that? In fact the developer might sell twice as many games and the original purchaser gets the game for cheaper than he/she would have paid (even after removing the resell benefit), so it is a win-win for those two. The only ones harmed by this model are those who would only buy the game used, but do we really have any obligation to protect their interests?
It is possible that there can be more than one fair way to publish and sell a game (or a book or a car).
The only thing sticking with the project demonstrates is that you're willing to work like a dog in intolerable conditions for a bunch of assholes. That ability might be useful to have on your resume, but not for any job I would want.
He calculated 12.5 W-hrs per hour, so once again we're back to 12.5 Watts.
Cable box manufacturers "do not feel consumer pressure to improve box efficiency" because consumers don't have a choice with which to pressure them.
If this were true then cable companies would never upgrade their boxes with most consumer features and they wouldn't spend billions in advertising.
In reality, there are many competitors to cable and they do add features (or lower prices) in response to consumer demand. In this case there is simply no general consumer awareness or demand for lower power STBs.
You just admitted that you're going there only because of the event so yes, it is a "free ride." The answer to how far away you need to go to not be getting a "free ride" is simple - far enough so that you're not getting an advantage from their event.
It may be a smart business move for you to take advantage of this free ride, but it's equally smart for CES to move you a little farther from their event, if they can. It's hard to blame them for using their business leverage when the hypothetical you tried to screw them first.
Yet even this article highlights the "alien search" in the headline. Better is still not up to the level of good in this case.
I think it boils down to the idea that if the teachers are already being paid to make lesson plans, then those plan are "work for hire" and they should not be able to sell them and profit yet again.
At best you make a case for why the practice is illegal. However, I have a hard time seeing how this practice, in general, is unethical and given the poorly designed compensation system for teachers this actually makes a lot of sense.
Teachers should be paid for performance, not for busy work (or the appearance of being busy). So whether a teacher works on a lesson plan during school hours or on the weekend is irrelevant if he's performing his primary task, which is educating the students. If a teacher puts in extra work to make a salable lesson plan then that not only benefits his own students, but also benefits every other student whose teacher buys that plan. If there were an incentive (pay, benefits, prestige) for that teacher to do this through the current school system that would be fine, but there isn't.
Yes, the teacher buying the plans benefits from not having to duplicate the work, but where is the harm in that? If the teacher deems it worthwhile to pay out of pocket then that teacher has more time for other activities. If the school pays for the plans then that is just a benefit they offer to lighten the load of the teachers at that school. Forcing teachers to duplicate work (which in most cases won't even be as good) is pointless and short-sighted.
Wait... suddenly understanding your own code is "formalized discipline"? Might I suggest your standards are simply too low? Because, in my mind, understanding your own code is in the category of "basic competency".
You were the guy who brought up "formalized discipline" as the goal, so the guy made a fair comment in response. You can't just use extreme examples when it suits you and then fault the other guy for carrying on your own analogy.
I am the walrus.
Charging the girl who took naked pictures of herself is like charging a 15 year-old who masturbates with statutory rape.
That would only be a fair analogy if the girl had kept the pictures to herself.
This is great because it teaches the player to press the computer and coordinate pieces while also constantly keeping an eye out for the wins.
It also has the quite beneficial result of accentuating the reward of solid play.
But humans do sometimes make such boneheaded mistakes, so you'd really just need to correctly estimate that probability (maybe they hang their queen only 0.2% of the time).
That's not really the problem though. As the author would probably point out, even that realistic probability would be perceived by the human player as the computer player intentionally throwing the game.
There may be a "friend was able to get a $NKBps sustained transfer through the cable connection at the time of the experiment" part that we're missing from the description.
That's kind of an important part, isn't it? The conclusion is totally unfounded based on the supplied evidence, so it's pretty worthless (at least to us).
If quality is lower it's because users demand the games more quickly and accept patches as a compromise. I have little sympathy for someone who buys a game on the first day of release and then bitches about the quality.
If gameplay is shorter it's because developers have figured out that the vast majority of customers never get past those first 6 hours or so.